Monday, December 12, 2005

PET and SUV

new comment in unusual configuration cxr. I had a long discussion with the radiologist in nuclear medicine. He essentially refused to tell me the SUV value on a PET scan, saying that there was so much overlap that it was useless. He was not (yet) able to cite any references to back this up but will hopefully be getting back to me on this. Judging by some of the comments here, I gather some of you rely on this value when making decisions regarding the "hotness" of a lesion. While we are awaiting the radiologist's reply, is anyone aware of studies debunking/invalidating the utility of the SUV value?

4 comments - CLICK HERE to read & add your own!:

DrJon said...

Good morning!

Here are some articles that may help you....

Glucose-normalized standardized uptake value from (18)F-FDG PET in classifying lymphomas.

Diagnostic performance and prognostic impact of FDG-PET in suspected recurrence of surgically treated non-small cell lung cancer.


The application of 18F-fluorodeoxyglucose positron emission tomography in the diagnosis and staging of lung cancer.

Intensity of 18fluorodeoxyglucose uptake in positron emission tomography distinguishes between indolent and aggressive non-Hodgkin's lymphoma.

Early evaluation of the response to radiotherapy of patients with squamous cell carcinoma of the head and neck using 18FDG-PET.

Cheers!

Arenberg said...

As you may know Jeff, our Nuclear medicine guys do not rely on ths SUV either. The SUV is not without utility, but on a relative scale, the party line in out tumor board is that the information garnered from the SUV is equally useful to an eyeball comparison of the uptake in any given lesion to that of the mediastinal blood pool.

Eugene O said...

Try this.
SUV: standard uptake or silly useless value?
http://jnm.snmjournals.org/cgi/content/citation/45/9/1431

Eugene O said...

Oops. I gave you a wrong web address.
Try below.
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/query.fcgi?cmd=Retrieve&db=PubMed&list_uids=7562051&dopt=Abstract